abdalla ramadgani mrinji vs michael ndongo ngudungu another 2021 tzhclandd 6992 19 september 2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA (LAND DIVISION)

AT DAR ES SALAAM MISC LAND APPLICATION NO. 514 OF 2022 (Arising from Land Case No. 224 of 2022)

ABDALLAH RAMADHANI MRINJI APPLICANT

VERSUS MICHAEL NDONGO NGUDUNGU 1®"^ RESPONDENT JASMIN BAHASHA SALUGOLE 2"° RESPONDENT Date oflast order: 19/09/2022 Date ofRuling; 19/09/2022 RULING. I. ARUFANI,3 The counsel for the applicant, Mr. Hekima Mwasipu has prayed to withdraw the present application from the court without costs. The counsel for the first respondent Mr. Taher Muccadam told the court he is not objecting the prayer to withdraw the application but Is praying to be granted costs as his client has engaged him, they have appeared In the court and they have filed In the court the counter affidavit. In his rejoinder Mr. Hekima Mwasipu Informed the court they are withdrawing the application because It has been overtaken by event as the respondents have already evicted the applicant from the suit premises while the order they were seeking from this court was to restrain the respondents from evicting the applicant from the suit premises. The court 1 has considered the argument made to the court by the counsel for the parties and find there Is no objection to the prayer of withdrawing the application from the court. The dispute Is whether the application should be withdrawn with or without costs. The court has found the Issue of granting or refusing costs to all suits as provided under section 30(1) of the Civil Procedure Code Cap 33 R.E 2019 Is placed In the discretion of the court. The court has full power to

determine to whom the costs shall be paid and who will pay the granted costs. The court has also found that subsection 2 of the above mentioned provisions of the law Is very clear that, where the court directs that any costs shall not follow the event,the court shall state Its reasons In writing. While being guided by the position of the law stated In the provisions of the law cited herelnabove, the court has considered the prayer made by the counsel for the first respondent that, the first respondent be granted costs of this application as he has appeared In the court and he has engaged an advocate and filed counter affidavit In the court but failed to see justifiable reason for granting costs to the first respondent. The court has come to the above finding after seeing that, as rightly stated by the counsel for the applicant, the applicant has decided to withdraw the Instant application from the court after seeing It has been overtaken by event due to the fact that the respondents have already 2 evicted the applicant from the suit premises and the application was seeking for an order of restraining the respondents and their agents from evicting the applicant from the suit premises. The court has found that, as when the parties appeared in the court on 5"^ September, 2022 the counsel for the first respondent told the court there was no need of granting an interim order in this

application because there was no eviction order which had been issued and there was no any threat showing the applicant would have been evicted from the suit premises and the court relied on the said argument to differ to grant an interim order sought by the counsel for the applicant, the court has found it will be injustice to grant the respondents costs in this application which has been rendered nugatory because of their action of evicting the applicant from the suit property while the application is still pending in the court. In the premises the court has found it is not proper for the interest ofjustice to grant the respondents costs in this application. Consequently, the prayer by the counsel for the applicant to withdraw the application without costs is hereby granted and the application is marked withdrawn without an order as to costs. It is so ordered. Dated at Dar es Salaam this 19^^ day of September, 2022 A L Arufani V-

JUDGE ★ rf 19/09/2022 Court: Ruling delivered today 19^^ day of September, 2022 in the presence of Mr. Kheri Sanga, Advocate for the applicant, and Mr. Taher Muccadam advocate for the first respondent. Right of appeal to the Court of Appeal is fully explained to the counsel for the parties. I. Arufani

JUDGE * rf 19/09/2022